FGDC Standards Process Review Survey Results Summary

Julie Binder MaitraFGDC Standards Coordinator

703-648-4627jmaitra@fgdc.gov

April 13, 2010 Coordination Group

Meeting

2

FGDC Standards Survey Review

Purpose and goalBackgroundRecommendations

3

Purpose and GoalPurpose Make the FGDC standards process more

effective and efficient without compromising validity of the process.

Goal Recommend improvements to the standards

process and/or revalidate existing processes

4

BackgroundSurvey was implemented through SurveyMonkey in Dec. 2009.

Announced at the Jan. 8, 2010 Coordination Group meeting.

Invitations sent through mailing lists to FGDC CG, FGDC Standards Working Group, and other Federal agency members.

The survey was open January 8-22, 2010.

There were 70 responses on the survey. Thirty-three responses were incomplete. Thirty-seven participants completed the survey.

Open-ended text responses were categorized to identify patterns of responses.

Other survey results lent themselves to quantitative approaches

5

Survey Reponses by AgencyDepartment of Agriculture (6)

Natural Resources Conservation Service: 4

Forest Service: 1 Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS): 1

Department of Commerce (5) National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): 4

U.S. Census Bureau: 1

Department of Defense (1)DISDI (1)Library of Congress (2)

Department of Homeland Security (1)Federal Emergency Management Agency (1)Department of the Interior (17) Bureau of Land

Management (4) Fish and Wildlife Service

(2) National Park Service (3) U.S. Geological Survey

(3) U.S. Geological

Survey/Federal Geographic Data Committee (5)

Environmental Protection Agency (1)

6

Preliminary RecommendationsThe FGDC Standards WG should:

Set guidance for target dates for completion of documents by standards development groups

Take an active role in project management and tracking Continue promoting public review through Federal register

and other media Identify coordinators/facilitators for projects Provide funding to support resolution of public review

comments Refer proposals for FGDC standards projects to the FGDC

Coordination Group to determine if a project is within scope Revise FGDC standards directives to require a 14-day

concurrent review by both the FGDC Standards WG and the FGDC Coordination Group

7

Preliminary Recommendations

The FGDC Standards WG should: Submit the GSDI suite of standards for FGDC

endorsement. Review external standards for

endorsement/recommendation if an FGDC Standard contains normative references to external standards

Recommend to the FGDC Coordination Group the development of a cadre of experts in UML and XML to assist in standards development

Propose a slate of FGDC standards projects for withdrawal

Recommend to the CG that the issue of SWG participation be raised to the FGDC Steering Committee.

8

Preliminary Recommendations

Standards development groups and sponsoring organizations should:

Dedicate effort when writing a standards proposal to Identify requirements Line up subject matter experts Seek multiple agency sponsors or sponsorships for a

proposed standard Identify and document the business areas that will be

impacted by a proposed standard. Coordinate with their FGDC Coordination Group and

FGDC Standards WG representatives during all phases of the project.

9

Preliminary Recommendations

Standards development groups and sponsoring organizations should:

Seek dedicated project support such as facilitators and contractors

Obtain agency commitment (dedicating human resources for SMEs, authors) for standards development

Promote public review within their Communities of Interest (CoI)

Identify SMEs and dedicate FTEs for resolution of public review comments

10

Preliminary Recommendations

FGDC member agencies should: Participate in the FGDC standards review and

approval process, if only to be aware of a project Participate in technical reviews if a standard affects

their business area Perform an editorial review to maintain the highest

administrative and processing quality of the standard Continue to promote awareness of FGDC standards

among their agencies and CoIs Could be allowed to abstain from voting if a standard

does not affect its business area

11

Question 3.1

3.1. All FGDC agencies should participate in the review and approval process of FGDC standards.

62%

38%

Yes

No

12

Question 3.2

3.2. All CG members or active designees will represent their Department/ Agency on standards activities that affect their mission

or business areas.

86%

14%

Yes

No

13

Question 3.3

3.3. Upon receipt of a standards proposal (step 2), the SWG should review the submission for completeness and then present the

proposal for the CG to determine if the standard should be introduced into the FGDC standards process.

92%

8%

Yes

No

14

Question 5

Does your agency use standards other than FGDC standards?

Question 5

73%

27%

Yes

No

15

Question 6

Do you support the idea that FGDC endorse Implementation Standards that enable interoperability, such as the suite of standards listed in the GSDI Cookbook?

Question 6

92%

8%

Yes

No

16

Question 4Do you have draft standards that you plan to submit

to the FGDC for review and recommendation in CY 2010?

North American Profile of ISO 19115, Geographic Information - Metadata, and North American Profile of ISO 19110, Geographic Information - Methodology for Feature Cataloging

U.S. Thoroughfare, Landmark, and Postal Address Data Standard

Review of existing Wetlands Classification Standard

Cultural Resources Geospatial Data Content Standard

Shoreline Data Content Standard

Federal Buildings and Facilities Geospatial Data Content Standard

17

Other Summary Results

18

Question 1

What is a reasonable length of time in months for standards from approval of a proposed standards project to FGDC endorsement?

Question 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69

Number of replies

Nu

mb

er

of

mo

nth

s

19

Question 2Review the FGDC standards process. Identify one to three steps and time requirements appropriate to meeting your mission requirements.For each step, answer  What would you propose to reduce the time

and/or alter the process for this step? What is a reasonable length of time in

months for this step? How might the FGDC Standards Working

Group help expedite this step?

20

FGDC Standards ProcessSTAGE STEP LENGTH OF TIME CUSTODIAN

PROPOSAL 1 – Develop proposal Unknown Standards development group

2 - Review proposal Minimum 14 days FGDC Standards Working Group (SWG)

PROJECT 3 – Set up project Standards development group

DRAFT 4 – Produce working draft These steps can take 1-5 years

Standards development group5 – Review working draft

REVIEW 6 – Review and evaluate committee draft

Minimum 30 days SWG

7 – Approve standard for public review

Minimum 14 days FGDC Coordination Group

8 – Coordinate public review 90 days FGDC Secretariat

9 – Respond to public comments

This step can take 6 months or longer

Standards development group

10 – Evaluate responsiveness to public comments

Minimum 30 days SWG

11 – Approve standard for endorsement

Minimum 14 days FGDC Coordination Group

FINAL 12 – FGDC Endorsement Minimum 10 days FGDC Steering Committee

21

Question 2.1.2

What is a reasonable length of time in months for this step?

Question 2.1

6

02

0 0

31 1 1

0

9

6

23

1 1

18

2

6

12

6

24

6

13

4

12

24

6

12 12

1 1 12 2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30S

tep

1

Ste

p 1

Ste

p 1

Ste

p 1

Ste

p 1

Ste

p 1

Ste

p 2

Ste

p 2

Ste

p 2

Ste

p 2

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 3

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 4

Ste

p 5

Ste

p 5

Ste

p 6

Ste

p 8

Ste

p 9

Process step

No

. M

on

ths

22

Question 2.2.2

What is a reasonable length of time in months for this [second] step?

Question 2.2

10

24

2

12

4

18

3

12 12

36

1 12 2

6

1

6 6 6

3

6

10

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Step02

Step02

Step02

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step04

Step06

Step06

Step08

Step08

Step08

Step09

Step09

Step09

Step09

Step09

Step09

Step10

Step12

Step12

Process steps

No

of

mo

nth

s

23

Question 2.3.2

What is a reasonable length of time in months for this [third] step?

Question 2.3

3 3

6

1 1

2

1

2

6

12

2 2

1

3

4 4

1

3

00

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Step 4 Step 5 Step 5 Step 5 Step 5 Step 6 Step 8 Step 8 Step 9 Step 9 Step 9 Step 9 Step 9 Step 9 Step 9 Step 9 Step12

Step12

Step12

Process step

No

. of

mo

nth

s

24

Question 3Many organizations require all members to have representation on their standards approval body. Currently, the FGDC Coordination Group gets a chance to approve a standard only after it has gone through most of the FGDC standards development and review steps. Do you support the following process

changes?

25

Question 7What other activities should the

FGDC Standards Working Group address this year?

Varied responses